WTC7's "Free Fall"

[deep_space]

real data is in abundance, its just that some people don't like what they see.

 

[daws101]

real data is in abundance, its just that some people don't like what they see.

a perfect description of you guys.
you hated it so much that you had to make shit up..

 

[Capstone]

...you hated it so much that you had to make shit up..

Nobody 'made up' the occurrence of freefall. It happened on camera, and the NIST group eventually conceded as much...without providing an explanation that didn't call for the suspension of faith in the laws of physics.

Likewise, some of the "real data" provided by FEMA, the USGS, NORAD, the NTSB, the FAA, and even the FBI contradicted the official story, both individually and collectively, indicating a substantial deficiency in the governmental complicity department. Obviously, the conspiracy simply wasn't large enough to prevent such contradictory data from being documented and eventually released (NOT made up) by some of the government's own agencies.

So, whose "real data" should we cite, Daws: the government's...or the government's?

 

[SAYIT]

...you hated it so much that you had to make shit up..

Nobody 'made up' the occurrence of freefall. It happened on camera, and the NIST group eventually conceded as much...without providing an explanation that didn't call for the suspension of faith in the laws of physics.

Likewise, some of the "real data" provided by FEMA, the USGS, NORAD, the NTSB, the FAA, and even the FBI contradicted the official story, both individually and collectively, indicating a substantial deficiency in the governmental complicity department. Obviously, the conspiracy simply wasn't large enough to prevent such contradictory data from being documented and eventually released (NOT made up) by some of the government's own agencies.

So, whose "real data" should we cite, Daws: the government's...or the government's?

The gov't's (emphasis added):

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time - compared to the 3.9 second free fall time - was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

The NIST investigation also found no evidence of explosions consistent with a CD. So whose "real data" should we cite ... yours or the gov't's?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[Capstone]

...During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. ...

Their multistage video analysis followed a point near the center of the roof-line which remained intact all the way across, meaning that it wasn't just "the north face" that descended "essentially in freefall", it was the entirety of the external structure that dropped symmetrically throughout the stages.

Beyond that, all the semantic wrangling in the world won't change the fact that the phrases "essentially in freefall" and "in freefall" point up a distinction without a difference, in that both require the absence of resistance from the structure below (not merely "negligible support from the structure below").

... This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. ...

But not consistent with the laws of physics, unless "losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above" is synonymous with the complete removal of all resistance from more than 8 floors worth of building materials.

...The NIST investigation also found no evidence of explosions consistent with a CD. ...

A clear indication that those so-called investigators simply didn't search for any such evidence (as was affirmed by one of the NIST group's spokespersons at a video-taped Q&A session).

...So whose "real data" should we cite ... yours or the gov't's?...

How's about FEMA's and the USGS's, both of which documented the presence of physical materials at ground zero that required temperatures and conditions far too extreme to be explained by jet fuel or office furnishings?

 

[daws101]

...During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. ...

Their multistage video analysis followed a point near the center of the roof-line which remained intact all the way across, meaning that it wasn't just "the north face" that descended "essentially in freefall", it was the entirety of the external structure that dropped symmetrically throughout the stages.

Beyond that, all the semantic wrangling in the world won't change the fact that the phrases "essentially in freefall" and "in freefall" point up a distinction without a difference, in that both require the absence of resistance from the structure below (not merely "negligible support from the structure below").

... This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. ...

But not consistent with the laws of physics, unless "losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above" is synonymous with the complete removal of all resistance from more than 8 floors worth of building materials.

...The NIST investigation also found no evidence of explosions consistent with a CD. ...

A clear indication that those so-called investigators simply didn't search for any such evidence (as was affirmed by one of the NIST group's spokespersons at a video-taped Q&A session).

...So whose "real data" should we cite ... yours or the gov't's?...

How's about FEMA's and the USGS's, both of which documented the presence of physical materials at ground zero that required temperatures and conditions far too extreme to be explained by jet fuel or office furnishings?

 

[deep_space]

First of all, people need to see that there is a very serious problem here, if everybody simply goes along thinking that there is no problem, then its just going to get worse. Can America figure it out? that is the fact that here indeed is a problem here and the events of 9/11/2001 could not possibly be as described in the official story.

 

[SAYIT]

First of all, people need to see that there is a very serious problem here, if everybody simply goes along thinking that there is no problem, then its just going to get worse. Can America figure it out? that is the fact that here indeed is a problem here and the events of 9/11/2001 could not possibly be as described in the official story.

There is indeed a problem here but you apparently haven't the courage to face it. Most of those who once were 9/11 "Truthers" simply slithered away, embarrassed to have been suckers for the Movement's hucksters but some have had the integrity to admit they had been played and made their admissions public. Do you have the courage to admit to yourself the damage you do with your 9/11 silliness and the integrity to admit it publically?

Screw Loose Change Mikey Metz Responds

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QFjAF&url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html&ei=3zPNVMelBYzIsAT1hYCQDQ&usg=AFQjCNHz3Uj1z8KHiP4tI_4IZGlW6DV9qw&bvm=bv.85076809,d.cWc

 

[Faun]

 

[n0spam4me]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse and to that I offer up the following:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

 

[Faun]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse and to that I offer up the following:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

You don't want straight answers. You ignore straight answers. You want to drown in your conspiracy nonsense.

 

[n0spam4me]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse and to that I offer up the following:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

You don't want straight answers. You ignore straight answers. You want to drown in your conspiracy nonsense.

So then, on the subject of "straight answers" what is the reason for the straight down, free-fall, event of 2.25 sec that was WTC7.
What caused it?

 

[Faun]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse and to that I offer up the following:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

You don't want straight answers. You ignore straight answers. You want to drown in your conspiracy nonsense.

So then, on the subject of "straight answers" what is the reason for the straight down, free-fall, event of 2.25 sec that was WTC7.
What caused it?

The building first collapsed in the inside due to structural damage caused by a 110 story building next to it raining steel and concrete onto it. The exterior of the building fell 7 seconds later as there was no support under it nor anything restricting its fall at that point.

 

[SAYIT]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse...

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

 

[deep_space]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse...

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

again, insult & abuse rather than information.

 

[Capstone]

The building first collapsed in the inside due to structural damage caused by a 110 story building next to it raining steel and concrete onto it. The exterior of the building fell 7 seconds later as there was no support under it nor anything restricting its fall at that point.

That explanation doesn't account for the materials that composed the exterior of the building. Subtracting all of the internal supports from the equation, concrete doesn't pulverize concrete without creating resistance either. Any viable explanation as to how the so-called 'facade' could have descended 100+ ft. at gravitational acceleration over the 2 and a quarter seconds admitted by NIST would entail more than the removal of all internal support; it would further require the absence of physical resistance from more than 8 stories worth of material that constituted the building's exterior bearing walls. The freefall is proof positive that this material couldn't have been crushed/pulverized as the progressive collapse model suggests, and that, therefore, it must have been removed from the path of descent by some other means.

 

[SAYIT]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse...

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

again, insult & abuse rather than information.

Spammy, like so many like-minded "Truther" sheeple, has rejected the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks on America so often and so completely that there is no longer any reason to respond with anything but the insults and abuse he clearly craves and even demands. Spammy's "No Plane" theory is so off the wall that semi-rational "Truthers" - there being no rational "Truthers" - dismiss it as disinformation intended to discredit their movement and discussion of it has been banned at some CT websites.

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites."

 

[n0spam4me]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse...

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

again, insult & abuse rather than information.

Spammy, like so many like-minded "Truther" sheeple, has rejected the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks on America so often and so completely that there is no longer any reason to respond with anything but the insults and abuse he clearly craves and even demands. Spammy's "No Plane" theory is so off the wall that semi-rational "Truthers" - there being no rational "Truthers" - dismiss it as disinformation intended to discredit their movement and discussion of it has been banned at some CT websites.

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites."

So having totally run out of excuses as to why WTC7 should have collapsed as it did, the opposition launches into an attack on a completely different aspect of the false flag that was 9/11/2001. And lacking documented physical evidence that "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93" even existed at all, the opposition still supports the fairy tale about those 19 suicidal radical Arabs.

 

[SAYIT]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse...

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

again, insult & abuse rather than information.

Spammy, like so many like-minded "Truther" sheeple, has rejected the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks on America so often and so completely that there is no longer any reason to respond with anything but the insults and abuse he clearly craves and even demands. Spammy's "No Plane" theory is so off the wall that semi-rational "Truthers" - there being no rational "Truthers" - dismiss it as disinformation intended to discredit their movement and discussion of it has been banned at some CT websites.

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites."

So having totally run out of excuses as to why WTC7 should have collapsed as it did, the opposition launches into an attack on a completely different aspect of the false flag that was 9/11/2001. And lacking documented physical evidence that "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93" even existed at all, the opposition still supports the fairy tale about those 19 suicidal radical Arabs.

I am not "the opposition" but rather just one tormentor and as you may (or may not) have noticed, I quit the rational approach with you months ago as I am not one to bang my head against a wall (you) needlessly. As already noted, your theories are so off the wall that even some truth movement veterans repeatedly refuted your "no-plane" claims and consider them to be disinformation intended to discredit the Movement. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

 

[n0spam4me]

There are people who will promote the idea that "truthers" don't deserve a straight answer, only insult and abuse...

"Truthers" aren't just asking questions. They are proposing alternative realities such as the absurd "No planes" theory promoted as "fact" by one of this thread's idiots.

again, insult & abuse rather than information.

Spammy, like so many like-minded "Truther" sheeple, has rejected the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks on America so often and so completely that there is no longer any reason to respond with anything but the insults and abuse he clearly craves and even demands. Spammy's "No Plane" theory is so off the wall that semi-rational "Truthers" - there being no rational "Truthers" - dismiss it as disinformation intended to discredit their movement and discussion of it has been banned at some CT websites.

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Some truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites and advocates have sometimes been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites."

So having totally run out of excuses as to why WTC7 should have collapsed as it did, the opposition launches into an attack on a completely different aspect of the false flag that was 9/11/2001. And lacking documented physical evidence that "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93" even existed at all, the opposition still supports the fairy tale about those 19 suicidal radical Arabs.

I am not "the opposition" but rather just one tormentor and as you may (or may not) have noticed, I quit the rational approach with you months ago as I am not one to bang my head against a wall (you) needlessly. As already noted, your theories are so off the wall that even some truth movement veterans repeatedly refuted your "no-plane" claims and consider them to be disinformation intended to discredit the Movement. In fact, discussion of no-plane theories has been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

So again, without a rebuttal to the WTC7 physics argument, you choose to create a tangent in the hope that nobody will notice the shift, the fact is that you can NOT supply a proper argument as to why WTC7 should have collapsed as it did in response to fire. The NIST "report" on the subject constitutes fraud.

+ the fact that the airliners can NOT be proven to have actually existed at all.
what do you have?